Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... xed and the appellant undertakes affixing of stickers on the shoes indicating bar codes, MRP and logo of the appellant on the bottom of the sole. However, in the statements recorded under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, the appellants have clearly admitted that they have no evidence in respect of this claim. Further, it is also an admitted fact that opportunity was given to them by the adjudicating authority to lead evidence about the receipt of shoes in pre-packed form; however, the appellants were not able to lead any evidence in spite of sufficient time being granted and the appellants admitted that they have no evidence in this regard. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that they had received about 10% to 15% of the shoe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of footwear is put in plastic bags having REGAL' monogram and REGAL' brand named printed on it. Thereafter, the shoes are packed in cardboard boxes having REGAL' brand name printed on it and on the card board boxes also, stickers are affixed which indicate item No., colour, bar code, size and MRP. The appellants also claimed that they were receiving footwear from karigars in finished form in boxes bearing MRP. In such cases, only the size of footwear is either imposed or a sticker is affixed on the bottom sole of the footwear. After receiving the footwear, they put a sticker showing item No., date of packing and MRP on the bottom side of the sole and on the front side of the sole, they put a sticker with the brand name REGAL. Thereafter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... already packed shoes does not amount to manufacture. He relies on the decision of this Tribunal in a similar case in the case of Rafique Malik vide order No. A/1331/WZB/2005 CIII dated 29/06/2005 wherein this Tribunal held that in cases where shoes were received in unit containers and where bar code and MRP are only affixed on the shoes, the same would not attract duty liability. The said decision was followed by this Tribunal in the case of Shree leathers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2012 (275) ELT 225. The learned counsel also relied on the order of the Authority for Advance Rulings dated 24/08/2012 in the case of Amazon Seller Services wherein the issue or packing and stickering in relation to goods purchased by the customers of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion 14 that they had given incorrect particulars in the writ petition and they have no proof showing that they had received the gods already pre-packed. He further submits that they have taken the goods already pre-packed. He further submits that they have taken the same plea before the adjudicating authority during the personal hearing held on 05/05/2004 who gave an opportunity to the appellants to produce evidence in respect of their claim that they had received some consignments of shoes pre-packed in plain boxes. The appellants sought time till 31/05/2004 to submit the evidence. However, vide letter dated 02/06/2004, the appellants submitted before the adjudicating authority that they would not be in a position to give the bifurcation o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s in pre-packed form; however, the appellants were not able to lead any evidence in spite of sufficient time being granted and the appellants admitted that they have no evidence in this regard. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that they had received about 10% to 15% of the shoes in pre-packed form from the karigars is only a mere claim without any supporting evidence. In the absence of any supporting evidence, such a claim cannot be entertained and, therefore, the adjudicating authority was right in concluding that the activities undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture' as defined in Section 2(f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Third Schedule thereof. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates